From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Delegated signatures in Bitcoin within existing rules, no fork required
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:09:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <plFEi9xoSnZ0TDJ7wH2dJx1F727FCSBrPsa2-26AXtveHKolt9bzTE1tiGIoPSjhgBfToVID2YHEaMGwwVU5dZ3Sozmz9UO-6HvbEDmm67I=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhC1Y13p7KazfUOXFZ5vi5MA9EQ-scyafv4aNkjskoXBg@mail.gmail.com>
Good morning Jeremy,
This is a very cool idea!
> Multiple Delegates: By signing a txn with several delegate outputs, it is possible to enforce multiple disparate conditions. Normally this is superfluous -- why not just concatenate S1 and S2? The answer is that you may have S1 require a relative height lock and S2 require a relative time lock (this was one of the mechanisms investigated for powswap.com).
I am somewhat confused by this.
Do you mean that the delegating transaction (the one signed using the script of A with `SIGHASH_NONE`) has as input (consumes) multiple delegate outputs D1, D2... with individual scripts S1, S2... ?
> Sequenced Contingent Delegation: By constructing a specific TXID that may delegate the coins, you can make a coin's delegation contingent on some other contract reaching a specific state. For example, suppose I had a contract that had 100 different possible end states, all with fixed outpoints at the end. I could delegate coins in different arrangements to be claimable only if the contract reaches that state. Note that such a model requires some level of coordination between the main and observing contract as each Coin delegate can only be claimed one time.
Does this require that each contract end-state have a known TXID at setup time?
> Redelegating: This is where A delegates to S, S delegates to S'. This type of mechanism most likely requires the coin to be moved on-chain to the script (A OR S or S'), but the on-chain movement may be delayed (via presigned transactions) until S' actually wants to do something with the coin.
The script `A || S || S'` suggests that delegation effectively still allows the original owner to still control the coin, right?
Which I suppose is implied by "Revocation" above.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-16 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-10 23:55 Jeremy
2021-03-16 6:09 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
2021-03-16 6:16 ` Jeremy
2021-03-16 8:36 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-03-17 6:30 ` Jeremy
2021-03-24 13:33 ` Guido Dassori
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='plFEi9xoSnZ0TDJ7wH2dJx1F727FCSBrPsa2-26AXtveHKolt9bzTE1tiGIoPSjhgBfToVID2YHEaMGwwVU5dZ3Sozmz9UO-6HvbEDmm67I=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox